State v. Van Tielen
2017 Ohio 2799
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant John Van Tielen was convicted (guilty plea) in 2010 of four counts of pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor after child pornography was found on his computer; prior rape convictions made each six-year sentence mandatory and the court imposed consecutive terms totaling 24 years.
- Van Tielen filed multiple appeals related to his conviction and sentence over subsequent years.
- On June 13, 2016 Van Tielen moved in the trial court for the return of property seized from his computer; no forfeiture specification had been charged.
- The trial court denied the motion, reasoning the claim was barred by res judicata.
- The Twelfth District reversed, holding the trial court erred to decide the motion on res judicata grounds and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the property must be returned or forfeited under the applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied a motion for return of property as barred by res judicata | State argued judgment and prior litigation precluded relitigation of issues arising from the conviction | Van Tielen argued res judicata did not bar his postconviction motion for return of property and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resolve forfeiture during appeals | Court held res judicata was an improper basis; reversed and remanded for determination on return/forfeiture |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion given prior appeals | State implicitly relied on finality of conviction to preclude relief | Van Tielen contended there were no pending appeals when he filed the motion and trial court could decide it | Court noted a trial court lacks jurisdiction to act during an active appeal but here there were no pending appeals when motion filed, so res judicata was inappropriate |
| Whether forfeiture procedures (R.C. Chapter 2981) must be followed before denying return of property | State did not allege forfeiture or include forfeiture specification | Van Tielen argued statutory forfeiture procedures apply and were not followed | Court remanded to apply relevant forfeiture/return law (did not resolve statutory questions on the record) |
| Whether denial based on res judicata deprived Van Tielen of due process | State relied on claim preclusion from conviction | Van Tielen argued due process violated because motion was improperly dismissed on res judicata grounds | Court agreed dismissal on res judicata was erroneous and reversed; remanded for proper adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (trial court loses jurisdiction over matters in a case once an appeal is pending, except to act in aid of the appeal)